OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy (LPN and RPN) are strongly related to influence of tumor complexity and learning curve. We analyzed a consecutive experience between RPN and LPN to discern if warm ischemia time (WIT) is in fact improved while accounting for these two confounding variables and if so by which particular aspect of WIT. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive procedures performed by a single surgeon between 2002-2008 (LPN) and 2008-2012 (RPN). Specifically, individual steps, including tumor excision, suturing of intrarenal defect, and parenchyma, were recorded at the time of surgery. Multivariate and univariate analyzes were used to evaluate influence of learning curve, tumor complexity, and time kinetics of individual steps during WIT, to determine their influence in WIT. Additionally, we considered the effect of RPN on the learning curve. RESULTS: A total of 146 LPNs and 137 RPNs were included. Considering renal function, WIT, suturing time, renorrhaphy time were found statistically significant differences in favor of RPN (p < 0.05). In the univariate analysis, surgical procedure, learning curve, clinical tumor size, and RENAL nephrometry score were statistically significant predictors for WIT (p < 0.05). RPN decreased the WIT on average by approximately 7 min compared to LPN even when adjusting for learning curve, tumor complexity, and both together (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found RPN was associated with a shorter WIT when controlling for influence of the learning curve and tumor complexity. The time required for tumor excision was not shortened but the time required for suturing steps was significantly shortened.
OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy (LPN and RPN) are strongly related to influence of tumor complexity and learning curve. We analyzed a consecutive experience between RPN and LPN to discern if warm ischemia time (WIT) is in fact improved while accounting for these two confounding variables and if so by which particular aspect of WIT. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive procedures performed by a single surgeon between 2002-2008 (LPN) and 2008-2012 (RPN). Specifically, individual steps, including tumor excision, suturing of intrarenal defect, and parenchyma, were recorded at the time of surgery. Multivariate and univariate analyzes were used to evaluate influence of learning curve, tumor complexity, and time kinetics of individual steps during WIT, to determine their influence in WIT. Additionally, we considered the effect of RPN on the learning curve. RESULTS: A total of 146 LPNs and 137 RPNs were included. Considering renal function, WIT, suturing time, renorrhaphy time were found statistically significant differences in favor of RPN (p < 0.05). In the univariate analysis, surgical procedure, learning curve, clinical tumor size, and RENAL nephrometry score were statistically significant predictors for WIT (p < 0.05). RPN decreased the WIT on average by approximately 7 min compared to LPN even when adjusting for learning curve, tumor complexity, and both together (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found RPN was associated with a shorter WIT when controlling for influence of the learning curve and tumor complexity. The time required for tumor excision was not shortened but the time required for suturing steps was significantly shortened.
Authors: Steven C Campbell; Andrew C Novick; Arie Belldegrun; Michael L Blute; George K Chow; Ithaar H Derweesh; Martha M Faraday; Jihad H Kaouk; Raymond J Leveillee; Surena F Matin; Paul Russo; Robert G Uzzo Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Mihir M Desai; Jihad H Kaouk; Anoop M Meraney; David P Murphy; Gyung Tak Sung; Andrew C Novick Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew T Gettman; Michael L Blute; George K Chow; Richard Neururer; Georg Bartsch; Reinhard Peschel Journal: Urology Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Benjamin J Scoll; Robert G Uzzo; David Y T Chen; Stephen A Boorjian; Alexander Kutikov; Brandon J Manley; Rosalia Viterbo Journal: Urology Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Brian M Benway; Sam B Bhayani; Craig G Rogers; Lori M Dulabon; Manish N Patel; Michael Lipkin; Agnes J Wang; Michael D Stifelman Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Leslie A Deane; Hak J Lee; Geoffrey N Box; Ori Melamud; David S Yee; Jose Benito A Abraham; David S Finley; James F Borin; Elspeth M McDougall; Ralph V Clayman; David K Ornstein Journal: J Endourol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Faris Abushamma; Abdulkarim Barqawi; Samah W Al-Jabi; Maha Akkawi; Mosab Maree; Sa'ed H Zyoud Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 3.989